When I think of the other Charles I & II, I think of centuries ago and I don't associate Prince Charles with them or their activities. Charles is not a common name for a monarch. George, Edward are. If he wanted to be different, he would keep his name. Will be interesting in the future what name he picks. When is this actually done? Right before he is coronated?

It is done the day his mother dies at his Accession Council.

His coronation, when he will be actually crowned, won't take place for about a year after his accession but he will already have been King xxxx for some time by then.

On the day the Queen dies (or early the next day if she dies late in the day) an Accession Council will be held at which he will take the oath, announce his regal name and confirm the PM in his office. The present reign began with two of these as the first was done by proxy and the second was done with the Queen actually present.

After that will be the formal proclamation of the new monarch and then about a year later - after the emotions of the death of the parent have disappated - the coronation will occur with the formal crowning of the new monarch by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

George is closer in association with Charles than Charles I*II. The Charles' were the Stuarts and the George's were the Hanovers which I think Charles and his mother are closer to. Plus it seems that the George's have had better luck than the Charles'. He has probably already gone over this and has known what his regnal name is going to be for some time.

It was her name but she was called Victoria from birth, that name was not choosen just when she became Queen....

I think I read that some people called her "Drina" as a nickname but my point was the King or Queen chooses the name he or she wishes to be known as and it can be completely different from the way he or she had formally been known. In fact, I believe the first proclamation or some such document used Queen Alexandrina Victoria and Queen Victoria made it clear that it was incorrect to address her as such or to sign her name that way. It was never repeated.

I think I read that some people called her "Drina" as a nickname but my point was the King or Queen chooses the name he or she wishes to be known as and it can be completely different from the way he or she had formally been known. In fact, I believe the first proclamation or some such document used Queen Alexandrina Victoria and Queen Victoria made it clear that it was incorrect to address her as such or to sign her name that way. It was never repeated.

I've read the same regarding the nickname. Was there a particular reason she chose to go with Victoria, (other than personal preference)?

Victoria was known by her second name for most of her life, but I recall reading that when it became clear that she would be Queen some higher ups tried to get her to change her name somehow so it would sound more English and she refused. It's not like either of her names was English sounding to begin with and she could only go by Alexandrina or Victoria.

I just hope HM Queen Elizabeth II has an even longer life than her much-loved mother.
Charles has too many (IMO) strange ideas about his Coronation and supposedly wants it to be partly at Westminster Hall and partly at Westminster Abbey as he wants to be "defender of faith" and recognise the UK as more multicultural. And the Camilla issue won't go away, either. How can a woman with a living husband be anointed Queen by the head of a Church which would not marry them, although it did bless the marriage. It seems to me there will be many questions raised by the Anglican Establishment if Camilla is anointed Queen. If she just takes the title, I don't think there would be as much concern.

From my personal point of view, I'd have loathed seeing Camilla as Charles' Queen Consort if Diana were still alive. Since the Princess rests in peace and can not be hurt anymore, it really doesn't matter to me, although I'd be curious to know the viewpoint of Princes William and Harry. I won't deny that I will never become a Camilla supporter, but neither do I wish her ill and I do recognise the assets she has brought to the BRF and particularly to Charles. (On a side note, I find the Diana admirers who post here to be much more kind about Camilla than the Camilla brigade is about Diana.)

My guess is he will be crowned as King Charles III, but it's just possible he will honour his beloved Granny, QEQM, by taking his Grandfather's name. The PoW is a sentimental man in some ways and it would not surprise me overmuch to see him as George VII.

Many of the Commonwealth countries, particularly Canada and Australia, have said they will take Charles' accession to the Throne as the time they will remove the Sovereign of the UK and Head of the Commonwealth (Head of the Commonwealth is not automatically Charles' after the Queen's death.) as their head of state. In Australia, some politicians directly connect this with the Charles/Diana debacle. I have heard similar stories about Canada, but not directly from Canadian politicians. I do believe William would have a greater chance of remaining as Head of State of both Australia and Canada. Nevertheless, I realise this is a hereditary monarchy and one can't remove Charles from his birthright and nor should he be removed unless it is 100% of his own free will (reasons such as gravely failing health, mental incompetence due to age, etc). The day the BRF allows popularity to outweigh the hereditary principle will be the day it would strike a deep blow to the entire institution of the monarchy. I can't believe it is or has ever been even under consideration, nor should it be.

Very interesting post, Aliza. I hadn't thought about the church entanglements of the "Camilla issue." King Charles III may well have to use some kingly power to get what he wants here - and he may not feel it's useful to try and do that.

I am against skipping Charles for William as I think it would harm the very fabric and foundations of the Monarchy. I also don't think it would be fair to William. I don't personally care what title Camilla will carry or currently carries, for that matter. (She is the Princess of Wales, whether Diana admirers such as myself, like it or not.) I think Charles will do his best to be a good King. Whether his definition of a good King will match the UK's or the Commonwealth, if he becomes Head of the Commonwealth, is another story. We will have to wait and see. Personally, I don't think he is cut out for the job, but I'd be delighted to be wrong. In the meantime, HM The Queen is the best monarch anyone could ask for and I hope her reign will continue for years to come with HM enjoying her current good health.

The only difference between Charles and other Heads of the Church of England is that he took the time and effort to make an honest woman out of his mistress. If anything, Charles is one of the better royal men when it comes to marriage, fidelity etc. I'm sure we could all sit here and list the Kings of England who had women on the side as well as children, before and after the creation of the Church of England. Then there are the Popes who produced children and had mistresses while serving the church.
As someone who was born and raised in the US, I know first hand that just because a man is not faithful to his wife, does not mean he will be bad at his job; some of our best presidents have been cheaters.

Sorry but I think that just because Charles will have been prepared during his life, doesn't mean he has an open mind.
Apart from organic farming etc., he is mainly a figure of fun and he is lacking in authority. Sad, but true.

I used to think Charles was a figure of fun and not fit to be king, until I actully started to pay attention to him and realized he is smarter and worthy of respect for his causes and how he has not only tried to help England but the world in general. Once you get pass the headlines, he becomes quite an endearing human being. He just has the unfortunate status of being the heir to a woman who is living a very very long time. As a son he probably is happy about that, but as an heir, not so much.

I think Charles will do fine as a king. He certainly has a good role model in his mother, and I'm hoping to see him carry on some of her practices. As for him being the catalyst to the dissolution of the monarchy, I think that's maybe a little harsh. Monarchy in today's world is 'of the people' and 'by the people', and I bet if the United Kingdom and Commonwealth didn't want the institution anymore, there would be a way to get rid of it. The sad part is, Charles could be doing a great job, but it'll be all about the desire of the people and the government that will be existing at the time.

__________________"My guiding principles in life are to be honest, genuine, thoughtful and caring".
~Prince William~

Really, I don't see the big issue with Charles becoming king. What is this argument that he's not cut out for the job? What qualifications, other than birth, does it require?

Politically, he will have no real power, so he cannot change or propose any government laws or policies.. all he can do is advise.. and the leaders of Parliament can either take his advice or not. He will just be a symbol of government like his mother and his grandfather before him.

I think he may change some things with regard to royal protocol, but he is traditionalist enough to want to protect the privileged position of the monarchy, so I doubt he will rock the boat too much.

He is well aware of the effect his actions will have upon the future positions of his sons. And he knows that as long as the monarchy is beneficial to the people.. as long as they see its benefits to their country, it will remain.

It will be Charles' job to show his people that the monarchy is still relevant and that it does work for the people. And I think he has shown his willingness in that direction already.. through The Prince's Trust and all the other (many) charities he supports as Prince of Wales.

__________________┌ i vethed...nÔ i onnad. Minlű pedich nin i aur hen telitha. - Arwen & Aragorn, The Lord of the Rings(English translation: "This is not the end... it is the beginning. You told me once, this day would come.")

Sorry but I think that just because Charles will have been prepared during his life, doesn't mean he has an open mind.
Apart from organic farming etc., he is mainly a figure of fun and he is lacking in authority. Sad, but true.

For someone who is lacking in authority, he seems to have quite an influence on people. His private letters certainly seem to work well

For someone who is lacking in authority, he seems to have quite an influence on people. His private letters certainly seem to work well

But how many private letters can he write? He needs to be able to make the masses of ordinary Brits feel as though he represents them and understands them, to some extent.

His influence has been felt in architecture, for instance, but while commendable, it is not high on the British People's list of what needs to be fixed in these economic times.

Also, his style of living, so very different from his Mother's, makes him seem apart from the every day Brit. Maybe this will all change when he becomes King, I hope so. As I repeat myself again and again, I don't want to see him fail. Not for his own sake but for the sake of the Institution of the British Monarchy.